Domagas vs.

Jansen

Related Topic: Kinds of Action: a. As to cause or foundation: Personal actions and real actions/R.A. 7691, supra /Sec. 1, Rule 4 and Sec. 2 [a], Rule 4
FACTS: Domagas filed a complaint for forcible entry against Vivian Jensen before the MTC. The summons and the complaint were not served on Jensen because the latter was apparently out of the country. This was relayed to the Sheriff by her (the respondents) brother, Oscar Layno, who was then in Jensens house. The Sheriff left the summons and complaint with Layno, who received the same. The court rendered judgment in favor of Domagas. Jansen failed to appeal the decision. Consequently, a writ of execution was issued. Jensen filed a complaint against Domagas before the RTC for the annulment of the decision of the MTC on the ground that the Sheriffs failure to serve the complaint and summons on her because she was in Oslo, Norway, the MTC never acquired jurisdiction over her person. Jansen alleged therein that the service of the complaint and summons through substituted service on her brother, Oscar Layno, was improper. RTC rendered judgment in favor of Jensen and against Domagas. The trial court declared that there was no valid service of the complaint. The CA rendered judgment affirming the appealed decision with modifications. The CA ruled that the complaint of Domagas was one for ejectment, which is an action quasi in rem. The summons and the complaint should have been served via extraterritorial service under Section 15 in relation to Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the action of the petitioner in the MTC against the respondent is an action in personam or quasi in rem. HELD: The ruling of the CA that the petitioners complaint for forcible entry against the respondent is an action quasi in rem, is erroneous. The action of the petitioner for forcible entry is a real action and one in personam. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations

brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Ruling: In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by personal service of summons as provided under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (a) substituted service set forth in Section 8; (2) personal service outside the country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of court; or (4) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
Decision: The respondent was not validly served with summons and the complaint in Civil Case No. 879 on April 5, 1999, by substituted service. Hence, the MTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent; as such, the decision of the MTC in Civil Case No. 879 is null and void.